MovieChat Forums > The Imposter (2012) Discussion > Worst documentary I have ever seen (spoi...

Worst documentary I have ever seen (spoiler)

posted 11 years ago by zalaH
27 replies | jump to latest

This is possibly the worst documentary I have ever seen, as I cant remember one that I sat through and enjoyed less than this.

I did not like the ridiculous reenactments. The way they tried to dramatize a lot of the stuff was really silly. I found the Frederic guy really annoying as well. He had a hard time trying to hide how much he liked being in the center of attention in this story.

And what was the point of showing the detective digging in the backyard? Were the audience suppose to believe that they were going to find the body of the boy during the filming of this documentary. It was one of the worst red herrings I have ever seen.

Also, the "twist" at the end when you find out more about Frederic. Was anyone actually surprised that the guy who pretended to be a lost child was actually a sociopath who had pretended to be lost children several times before?

[–] The-ManWithNoName 11 years ago

I have to admit, I was into it more in the 2nd half based on content alone.

However, I agree with almost everything you said. That detective sh!t was lame....ha,..to the point where it's embarrassing.

I also can't stomach reenactments. If the story is captivating and good enough for a feature documentary (which I believe it was), then pictures and interviews should suffice.

You're not a writer Fink, you're a goddamn write off

[–] DeadlySinner 11 years ago

"I also can't stomach reenactments. If the story is captivating and good enough for a feature documentary (which I believe it was), then pictures and interviews should suffice."

And if they didn't have any pictures? Then it would be a bunch of people talking in a room. You might as well just read the article in that case. The recreations are there to establish a sense of place or help you get into the subject's mind at the time.

Next you're going to tell me that Errol Morris is the worst documentarian.

Required reading for theater patrons:
http://tinyurl.com/shutheeffup

[–] astralxromance 11 years ago

YES! I thought this was horrible.

[–] Lbones007 11 years ago

I thought the final scene with the two guys still digging was supposed to be a metaphor for how the people will keep searching (digging) for the truth.

[–] ellebellebum 11 years ago

The thing I hated the most was, that the actor portraying Frederic had a thick DUTCH accent... Not at french one... Ugh!

[–] MadRotaryOne_DDCgod 11 years ago

that the actor portraying Frederic had a thick DUTCH accent.

Um, what the hell are you talking about???
All of the people were the real people
except when they had the re-enactments.

[–] donofthedial 10 years ago

the re-enactments were done by actors.

[–] MadRotaryOne_DDCgod 10 years ago

um.... That is exactly what I just said.
The "Re-inactments", where we see people
walking around and no talking, an actor
named Adam O'Brian plays Frédéric Bourdin

But when there is a speaking interview,
Frédéric Bourdin plays himself. So someone
saying that he has a dutch accent makes no
sense, when we know he is french...

[–] donofthedial 10 years ago

Don't hate me. I didn't read your post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RasuPL86_9g

[–] MadRotaryOne_DDCgod 10 years ago

then why did you reply to me?

[–] Howlin Wolf 11 years ago

It's a great story, but not a great documentary… A good documentary is supposed to have a perspective, and then present evidence to support that perspective. Here, it just felt like they had many different scenarios, (the family were idiots/the family were involved/the woman working for the FBI was negligent… ). and just wanted to play with the audience as much as the criminal did… Pick an angle to emphasise, and allow the viewer to determine the merits of the case made, instead of leaving them just as clueless as they were before they started watching. I could have found out everything in the documentary from reading articles and reports; what i want a documentary to do is shape a hypothesis for me, and then I can decide whether I agree with it, or not.

If we're judging on the interest value of the story alone, then the events are fascinating, and worthy of high marks… I just think the material could have been better organised.

"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

[–] BwlBoy 11 years ago

Astonishing jaw dropping story. I don't share the negativity.

[–] Howlin Wolf 11 years ago

I agree the story is great; I just would've liked to have seen more of a point of view... No negativity here, though; I still rated it a 10, based upon the facts of the story, alone.

"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

[–] adobo101 11 years ago

Disagree on the POV thing. I prefer not to be spoon-fed an opinion; and given the bizarre nature of the story, I think it lent itself to leaving the viewer with questions.

I also thought the reenactments were done very tastefully -- and I'm saying this as someone who usually hates them -- but I think a bar was set here for cinematic reenactments, and masterful editing with the interview & archival footage.

As for the PI digging for the body of Nicholas in dude's yard... well, if you're the director and the guy calls you up and says "hey, I'm gonna go dig up the yard today" you're telling me you WOULDN'T grab your camera and capture that *beep* on film?

:shrug: Haters gonna hate.

[–] Howlin Wolf 11 years ago

Even if you're spoon fed something, you still have the option of spitting it out…

I don't wanna be categorized as a hater, because I did think it was a great watch, and if you don't already know the story, then that's what matters… If you ARE familiar with events, it just doesn't offer much insight, therefore not representing what I want a documentary to be.

At least it gets people talking and thinking, though!

"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

[–] vlado544 11 years ago

Exactly.

[–] ethermusic1981 10 years ago

"Here, it just felt like they had many different scenarios, (the family were idiots/the family were involved/the woman working for the FBI was negligent… ). and just wanted to play with the audience as much as the criminal did…"

Exactly why this documentary stood out from countless others. That's what I loved about it.

[–] Howlin Wolf 10 years ago

Fair enough. I want my documentaries to be theory based, not a mystery - but hey; each to their own.

"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

[–] george_mase 9 years ago

I disagree with your claim that a good documentary should have a perspective and then present evidence to support that perspective. That is editorializing. A lot of the best documentaries are purely objective and let the viewer decide what to make of the data or evidence presented.

However one of my few issues with this documentary (which I did enjoy) was that it was too much from the perspective of Bourdin. The guy is a pathological liar and has spent his life living as a low-life con artist and trying to steal the identity of various children. They brought in some perspective from the family, law enforcement, and the private eye, but for the most part the story was driven by Bourdin's claims. It seems a bit like lazy story telling because I'm sure Bourdin was eagerly willing to talk to the cameras, more so than anyone else. He seems like a guy who would do anything just for a few seconds of attention.

[–] Howlin Wolf 9 years ago

All cases assembled by a human being have 'editorial bias', whether it is obvious, or not... Nothing is purely objective; it merely seems to be so from one perspective!

I agree with your second point; why give most prominence to his claims, when we already know he's a fraud?



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

[–] MadRotaryOne_DDCgod 11 years ago

well, you can thank the Oscar winning docutarian Errol Morris
for the reenactments, he was the one one started it like this
back in the 80's the "the thin blue line", which is possibly
one of the best documentaries ever made.

so if you don't like it, then stop watching...

[–] AssetsonFire 11 years ago

How do you not watch something you've already watched?

~.~
I WANT THE TRUTH! http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/

[–] viewer-1230 10 years ago

Wow I found it very compelling and a most excellent documentary! Oh well to each his own as they say.

[–] donofthedial 10 years ago

This is the most unreal and absurd thing I have ever seen.
I thought it was a parody of a variety of stupid people.

Darkest 'comedy' ever.